New updates on 80 Willow Road development project in Menlo Park
On its September 29 meeting the Menlo Park City Council rejected approval of the 80 Willow Road project under the terms of the Attorney General’s letter. Mayor Betsy Nash provided the full report-out from the closed session on this decision.
Closed session report out – Sept. 29, 2026
Report out by City Attorney Nira Doherty
“The City Council has authorized me to provide this report out of closed session:
After extensive deliberation, the City Council has carefully considered the Attorney General’s July 29, 2026, notice regarding the 80 Willow Rd. project. The Attorney General has concluded that the project is consistent with the requirements of AB 2011 (the Affordable Housing and High Roads Jobs Act of 2022) and, as currently proposed, satisfies the definition of a builder’s remedy project. This would mean that the City would be required to approve the project as proposed without any environmental review. The Attorney General has further reached conclusions regarding the City’s application processing fees, though without any factual basis to support them.
“The City Council respectfully disagrees with the Attorney General’s analysis. It believes the Attorney General’s conclusions are incorrectly reasoned and contrary to law. Prior to and since receiving the Attorney General’s notice, the City, with the assistance of legal counsel, has carefully and exhaustively analyzed all of the issues set forth in the Attorney General’s letter. The City has taken thorough, good faith positions on each of the issues raised by the Attorney General; further, each of the City’s positions is amply supported by applicable law. For that reason, the Council simply does not agree that State law requires approval of the 80 Willow Rd. project under the terms set forth in the AG’s letter.
“The Council recognizes that the financial penalties the Attorney General and Applicant have threatened could impose severe consequences on the City. The City Council considers the threat of those penalties as deeply unfair and extremely punitive. Even so, the Council maintains that the Attorney General’s position is inconsistent with the Legislature’s intent, and that the Attorney General is wielding the threat of those extraordinary penalties to coerce the City into action the City, in the utmost good faith, believes the law does not require.
Report out by Mayor Betsy Nash
“The City Council is united in its position that the Attorney General has incorrectly directed the City to approve the 80 Willow Rd. project under the terms of AB 2011. The AG issued its opinion without having the benefit of the City’s extensive knowledge of the property and the history of the development application, and without once inquiring with the City about the background of the application.
“The Council strongly opposes approval of the project under the terms in the AG’s letter. This massive commercial development would severely compound infrastructure challenges in Menlo Park, endanger emergency services response times, and exacerbate the existing jobs/housing imbalance. The project does not deliver the housing that Menlo Park needs, contrary to the very purpose of the builder’s remedy law.
“In addition, questions have been raised of potential illegality, corruption, and national security around the property owner — as outlined in Representative Liccardo’s September 23, 2026, letter to U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent.
“Finally, we need to be clear with residents that the City Council does not take this position lightly, but rather it does so because we feel Menlo Park is being ill-served by the State’s inappropriate position on various laws. The City Council believes it is important to get this right even if there are financial consequences and service impacts for the city that may be triggered by our effort to vindicate our rights and protect the Menlo Park community.”
Council member Drew Combs reports there’s a potential buyer for the property
In his weekly newsletter, council member Drew Combs wrote:
“Several weeks ago, a well-resourced party with a serious interest in purchasing the 80 Willow Road property reached out to me. Since then, I have led discussions between the city and this potential buyer. Mayor Betsy Nash, who I’ve included in these discussions, has also been involved.
“The potential buyer is very familiar with the property and values its historical significance. They have indicated that their intended use of the campus could be accommodated with only minimal interior modifications.
“These discussions have focused on providing the potential buyer with information about the likely timeline and process for obtaining the city permits necessary for their intended use of the property. Of course, there is no guarantee that this party will ultimately acquire the property, but this represents a promising possibility for the future of the 80 Willow Road campus.”
Pictured is Willow Park aerial view, rendering by Solomon Cordwell Buenz
Elaine Johnson September 30, 2026 at 7:47 pm
Wonderful news!
Chris Ziegler October 01, 2026 at 7:08 am
THANK YOU, Menlo Park!!!
Ardan Michael Blum October 04, 2026 at 12:12 pm
I support Vitaly Yusufov’s right to pursue the development at 80 Willow Road and to receive fair treatment from public officials. I also support allowing the project to proceed if it satisfies the applicable legal requirements. His Russian citizenship should not be treated as evidence of wrongdoing or a reason to prejudge his application.
Mayor Betsy Nash has acknowledged that the city’s position could have financial consequences and affect city services. That possibility deeply concerns me. Residents deserve a clear explanation of the potential costs, how they would be funded, and which services could be affected.
The dispute has now reached court. The developer filed suit on October 2, and Willow Project LLC’s petition asserts that the city faces at least $6.65 million in statutory fines if the applicant prevails under the provisions it invokes. Those penalties remain conditional on the court’s findings and the statutory requirements. They should be discussed as potential exposure, with legal costs considered separately.
Menlo Park is entitled to contest the Attorney General’s interpretation. Its October 1 response raises substantive eligibility arguments, including whether an earlier version of the application contained the required residential share. The commercial component is therefore relevant to the legal dispute. Which provisions govern this application, and whether their requirements are satisfied, deserve careful judicial consideration. Neither side’s confidence settles those questions.
The prospective buyer deserves a separate explanation. Councilmember Drew Combs says he and Mayor Nash have discussed permitting procedures with that party. Such discussions do not, by themselves, establish impropriety. Nevertheless, residents can reasonably ask what commitments, if any, the city has made and how it will ensure that the current application receives fair consideration while an alternative is explored. The Chronicle reports that the developer says the project is not for sale, so a voluntary transaction cannot be assumed.
My earlier comment questioned treating a federal investigation as a means to a predetermined planning outcome. The Daily Post’s September 29 editorial explicitly promotes sanctions as a way to stop the skyscraper. I support evidence-based scrutiny of ownership and financing, and any restrictions that have a proper legal basis. But federal reviewers must remain free to conclude that sanctions are unwarranted. The desire to stop a development should not determine an investigation’s findings.
The proposed housing also deserves consideration: 665 homes, including 100 affordable to low-income households. Any comparison with another use of the property should address the housing that would be provided, infrastructure demands, and the historic campus. The available description of the prospective buyer’s intentions does not establish what housing, if any, that alternative would deliver.
My support for Yusufov’s rights is consistent with lawful scrutiny. It also means supporting approval if the project qualifies and no applicable legal restriction prevents it. I ask the council and Congressman Liccardo to make equally clear that they are prepared to accept that outcome.
—
Important: This is personal commentary. References to disputed allegations and potential penalties should not be read as findings of liability. My questions seek transparency and do not assert an improper agreement or undisclosed misconduct. I claim no knowledge of nonpublic discussions and welcome documented corrections.
Ardan Michael Blum October 04, 2026 at 12:15 pm
Previously on this wonderful hyperlocal website: https://inmenlo.com/2026/09/24/congressman-sam-liccardo-calls-for-federal-investigation-into-russian-owned-menlo-park-development/#comment-550863